US Politics - Pretending that the Iowa caucuses matter for some reason

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Getting back to Ron Paul for a second, I think there's an unwarranted assumption going on here, best exemplified by Ron Paul being listed the only opponent of various evils to have a "halfway decent chance" of winning the GOP nomination. The thing is, he doesn't have any such thing. Ron Paul's foreign policy views and opposition to the war ondrugs will prevent him from winning. We've played this game before: he's got enough organization and enough of a following to win a few headlines, by taking the odd CPAC straw poll or something, but even assuming that he wins Iowa tonight--like Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson--he's still not winning the nomination.

The GOP, you may have noticed, is very much in favor of things like “Endless War, the Surveillance State, the Drug War, the sprawling secrecy regime,” etc. These are, in fact, some of the basic priorities of what is—by and large—a very ideologically coherent party. The idea that Ron Paul can win despite opposing said basic GOP priorities is absurd; nothing like it has happened in American political history. (Barry Goldwater’s campaign for the nomination in 1964 occurred under very different circumstances, for reasons that I can get into if anybody wants to pursue the point.) The 2012 presidential race will be between a Republican who supports the Bush legacy on civil liberties and Barack Obama, who half-heartedly opposes different aspects of it.

So while I think it's awfully glib to act as if a basic commitment to economic justice and ending discrimination is some kind of compromised limousine-liberal affectation, the Greenwald-style argument is even worse than that. Even if I, as a liberal, was willing to sell out many of the core beliefs that have animated liberals since time immemorial, I am not so lacking in self-respect as to sell my soul at bargain-basement prices. Ron Paul has to put something worthwhile on the table. And what can he offer me? A GOP candidate who will start a debate on ending the war on drugs? A president who will stop the expansion of the surveillance state? Those aren't in his power to give.

(In any case, the “he’ll start a conversation” defense is really pretty thin. I have a good friend who has been an activist/community organizer for more than a decade, and one of her persistent gripes is that demonstrations and the like are often justified by saying, “Well, it’ll raise awareness.” There are a lot of things that will “start a conversation” about the War on Drugs, up to and including tattooing a picture of Stringer Bell on your ass and running nude through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Whether it’ll be a conversation that actually accomplishes anything is of course a much different story. Presumably a conversation where the civil libertarian side is represented by an easily discredited crank would end poorly for civil libertarians.)

The bottom line is that there's no substitute for organization and coalition building. Twenty years ago, you couldn't find a Democrat at any level higher than dog catcher who supported marriage equality. Today there are six states (plus DC) that have marriage equality, and five states that offer civil union protection. Five years from now, the news will be even better. People like to say that gay marriage is inevitable, but it's not inevitable for no reason, and it's certainly not inevitable because of people fantasizing about long-shot presidential candidates. It's inevitable because activists toiling in obscurity changed the political landscape so that half-hearted, compromised, hypocritical politicians had a reason to support their agenda. If you oppose the surveillance state, you've got to do the same.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ron Paul's foreign policy views and opposition to the war ondrugs will prevent him from winning. We've played this game before: he's got enough organization and enough of a following to win a few headlines, by taking the odd CPAC straw poll or something, but even assuming that he wins Iowa tonight--like Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson--he's still not winning the nomination.

The GOP, you may have noticed, is very much in favor of things like “Endless War, the Surveillance State, the Drug War, the sprawling secrecy regime,” etc.

I'd disagree with some of your characterizations, but ultimately, you are correct. There are some in the GOP who might actually embrace a more isolationist foreign policy, but that's not the core of Paul's problem. What's truly killing him are the remarks he made about 9/11, bin Laden, etc. No more wars is an argument for which there is an audience in the GOP. But the Truther theme running through his 9/11 comments and his opposition to the killing of OBL just are an immediate non-starter for many in the GOP. Oh, and his position on Israeil isn't helping either. Again, not so much the "it's none of our business" argument as it is him presenting the Israelis as the party more in the wrong. Regardless of the merits of that argument, it is a non-starter in the GOP.

[TrackerNeil]

The GOP, you may have noticed, is very much in favor of things like “Endless War, the Surveillance State, the Drug War, the sprawling secrecy regime,” etc. These are, in fact, some of the basic priorities of what is—by and large—a very ideologically coherent party. The idea that Ron Paul can win despite opposing said basic GOP priorities is absurd; nothing like it has happened in American political history. (Barry Goldwater’s campaign for the nomination in 1964 occurred under very different circumstances, for reasons that I can get into if anybody wants to pursue the point.) The 2012 presidential race will be between a Republican who supports the Bush legacy on civil liberties and Barack Obama, who half-heartedly opposes different aspects of it.

Actually, I'd like to hear what made 1964 and Goldwater different.

[TerraPrime]

People like to say that gay marriage is inevitable, but it's not inevitable for no reason, and it's certainly not inevitable because of people fantasizing about long-shot presidential candidates. It's inevitable because activists toiling in obscurity changed the political landscape so that half-hearted, compromised, hypocritical politicians had a reason to support their agenda. If you oppose the surveillance state, you've got to do the same.

I agree with your overall point, that changes like that need a lot of ground work. I will say, though, that having a high-profile politician talk about the surveillance issue is not a bad way to start the movement forward to critically examine what level of surveillance is appropriate for us. I think most of us wish that there were more critical voices in the Congress in response to the PATRIOT Act.

[Shryke]

I agree with your overall point, that changes like that need a lot of ground work. I will say, though, that having a high-profile politician talk about the surveillance issue is not a bad way to start the movement forward to critically examine what level of surveillance is appropriate for us. I think most of us wish that there were more critical voices in the Congress in response to the PATRIOT Act.

There's been high-profile politicians talking about it for awhile though. The larger issue is that most of the electorate supports the surveillance state.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

I agree with your overall point, that changes like that need a lot of ground work. I will say, though, that having a high-profile politician talk about the surveillance issue is not a bad way to start the movement forward to critically examine what level of surveillance is appropriate for us. I think most of us wish that there were more critical voices in the Congress in response to the PATRIOT Act.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want Ron Paul to shut up about it or anything. I think having him as a voice against surveillance, etc., is great; but as a standard-bearer he would have obvious flaws.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

We are losing manufacturing to a lot of countries other than China. For example, one of the recent green projects into which the U.S. taxpayer sunk over $500M to create jobs is going to result in the production of said autos in...Finland!

Nice spin FLOW, Too bad for you it´s bullshit.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Lupin or lupis or whatever your screen name is, that infographic you posted listed the cost of social security but I didn't see anything showing future benefits compared to theoretically taxable income that could be used to support it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just would like to see the numbers.

(null)

[IheartTesla]

Santorum seems to be bubbling his way to the top, alongside Paul and Romney. What the hell, man?

[awesome possum]

Wow, the GOP's desperation for Anyone-But-Romney is now reacing megalevels.

[Fez]

Santorum seems to be bubbling his way to the top, alongside Paul and Romney. What the hell, man?

He peaked at just the right time (i.e. last). It was right before the big night and there were no more Not-Romney's left (except Huntsman who doesn't count and Paul who has his own supporters), he's the last hope of the crazy.

[IheartTesla]

There also seems to be a distinct lack of enthusiasm. I'd pretty much thought Obama was the anti-Christ to most GOPers and a fair number of independents, but the lack of turnout makes me think the GOP will have a problem too getting voters to turn up in the general. Especially if they end up nominating a tool like Santorum (shudder) or a milquetoast Romney.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

I don't think Santorum is crazier than your average Republican, and the things that make him a tool are all things that play to GOP voters. The biggest liabilities he has in the primary are the 2004 Specter endorsement, weak fundraising, and the 2006 loss to Bob Casey. If there's a substantial anti-Romney faction out there that will rally to him as the conservative alternative, then all of those could be remedied pretty quickly.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Actually, I'd like to hear what made 1964 and Goldwater different.

Well, you asked... There were three major differences when Barry Goldwater was running in 1964, all of which were crucial to his campaign.

First off, the GOP in 1964 (like the Democrats in 1964) was an ideologically divided party. There were a lot of moderate-to-liberal Republicans, of course, but there was a prominent conservative wing as well that predated Goldwater, which included powerful Senators like Robert Taft and Joe McCarthy. Taft in particular had serious influence—he famously made a deal with Dixiecrat Richard Russell to shut down liberal legislation in 1938, creating a powerful conservative coalition that lasted until his death and stymied FDR and Harry Truman. So when Goldwater started running as a conservative, there were powerful party elites that were ready and willing to hear his message.

But that was in an era where both parties had prominent liberal and conservative wings. The Republicans had Goldwater and Rockefeller, the Democrats had George Wallace and Hubert Humphrey. These days, the most conservative Democrat in Congress is more liberal than the most liberal Republican, and both parties vote in lockstep a lot more than they used to. So there isn’t a dissident wing of the GOP like there used to be, there’s just Ron Paul.

Secondly, the Goldwater campaign was run in an era where primaries were a lot less important. A lot of state parties still selected delegates in dark, smoke-filled rooms, and the brokered convention was very much a reality. So it was more important to have a core of fiercely committed activists, and less important to have a big campaign budget. Plus, the Goldwater people had a secret advantage—all over the South, there were state Republican organizations that were sparsely attended (primarily by black leaders like Martin Luther King, Sr.). Goldwater activists—themselves all white—took over these organizations, kicked out the black Republicans, and selected a bunch of Goldwater delegates to the convention, giving themselves a big edge.

But there hasn’t been a brokered convention in four decades, and primaries are everything now. And that means that Ron Paul can’t just rely on a few committed activists, he needs to get his message out. There’s a large conservative media filled with people who oppose Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, many of whom are happy to make hay over any embarrassing things from his past. (Sean Hannity was trumpeting the newsletters recently, IIRC.) That will be the lens through which most GOP voters view Ron Paul’s candidacy. Paul can counteract this with ads, of course; but his fundraising, while impressive for a fringe candidate pales behind what Romney or Santorum could raise with the GOP elite behind them.

Finally, when Goldwater was running, he had a signature issue (opposition to civil rights) that had a huge receptive audience, already primed from more than a decade of organizing and race-baiting and media coverage. People didn’t need to be sold on the significance of Goldwater’s stance, as they had been pre-sold for years. Ron Paul’s signature issues are idiosyncratic, and there isn’t a large constituency out there waiting for somebody to lead on his issues. Ron Paul doesn’t have much elite support, he doesn’t have much popular support and he’s facing huge challenges that Goldwater didn’t.

[Fez]

I don't think Santorum is crazier than your average Republican, and the things that make him a tool are all things that play to GOP voters. The biggest liabilities he has in the primary are the 2004 Specter endorsement, weak fundraising, and the 2006 loss to Bob Casey. If there's a substantial anti-Romney faction out there that will rally to him as the conservative alternative, then all of those could be remedied pretty quickly.

On economic and foreign policy issues he's a standard issue far right Republican, on the social issues he's a bit further gone then most though. For instance he supports states rights to outlaw birth control. It's pretty common for Republicans to support draconian abortion bans, but even the far right usually likes to have sex without having to worry about an accident.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

On economic and foreign policy issues he's a standard issue far right Republican, on the social issues he's a bit further gone then most though. For instance he supports states rights to outlaw birth control. It's pretty common for Republicans to support draconian abortion bans, but even the far right usually likes to have sex without having to worry about an accident.

At best, that's a classic wedge issue for the Democrats to use later; it's not in Romney's interest to emphasize how much consequence-free sex he would let people have, not as long as he's running for the GOP nomination.

[Shryke]

I don't know, Santorum's been dead last for awhile now for a reason. He's only surging in Iowa and they went for Huckabee last time.

Unless something weird happens, I'd say Romney very half-heartedly sews this up.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Unless something weird happens, I'd say Romney very half-heartedly sews this up.

I think Romney probably wins over Rick Santorum too.

But having said that, Santorum's major weakness before was just looking like a loser and a has-been. But he just got a major, high-profile victory, so he doesn't look like a has-been now; and if Rick Santorum's not a loser, what's the knock against him from a GOP point of view?

[Fez]

I don't know, Santorum's been dead last for awhile now for a reason. He's only surging in Iowa and they went for Huckabee last time.

Unless something weird happens, I'd say Romney very half-heartedly sews this up.

His biggest liability actually is that he has almost no ground game outside Iowa so I'm not sure how easily he can capitalize on tying Romney there.

ETA: Also New Hampshire is the one state where Huntsman polls fairly well, and if he somehow got a surge and topped Romney it would take the luster off of Santorum's Iowa win and would be a major ding on Romney going forward. In that scenario I could see Perry or Gingrich getting another look.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

His biggest liability actually is that he has almost no ground game outside Iowa so I'm not sure how easily he can capitalize on tying Romney there.

ETA: Also New Hampshire is the one state where Huntsman polls fairly well, and if he somehow got a surge and topped Romney it would take the luster off of Santorum's Iowa win and would be a major ding on Romney going forward. In that scenario I could see Perry or Gingrich getting another look.

I think we need to see how the polls look in NH now that the Iowa results are known; but there is definitely precedent for candidates skyrocketing in the NH polls after doing well in Iowa. And if that Huntsman support survives his last place finish in Iowa intact, I would be surprised.

ETA: I just looked at the most recent results, and Huntsman apparently has 700 votes, putting him ahead of "No Preference," "Other," Herman Cain, and Buddy Roemer (in that order). So Gov. Huntsman actually came in 7th place, with 0.6% of the vote.