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

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

And the power of Google compels you.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say that, so I'm going to address the two objections that occur to me and if it turns out that you meant something else, you can tell me

Yes, Rick Santorum lost to the son of a popular PA governor in a Democratic year (2006). But before that, he had won twice in a state that hasn't supported a Republican president since George H. W. Bush. Granted, 2000 isn't 2012 when it comes to gay rights; but we're also talking about a GOP primary, not a general election.

And yes, Rick Santorum was polling pretty badly in New Hampshire before the Iowa result. But that's not a static situation: with Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann dropping out, and with Newt Gingrich looking like an also-ran, Santorum's numbers will likely go up.

In any case, I'm not saying that Rick Santorum will be the nominee. Most likely, he will not be. Mitt Romney has a head start on organization, money and experience; and we don't know if Rick Santorum has the skills to scale his operation up to match. There could be a huge gaffe on Santorum's part today, and Romney would have this sewn up. So I'm not calling it for Santorum.

However, I would also say that just because a politician seems repellent to you (and to me; I think Santorum is a son of a bitch, no question), that doesn't mean that he can't still win national elections.

[IheartTesla]

Santorum sures makes people froth........

I'll be here all week.

[Fez]

However, I would also say that just because a politician seems repellent to you (and to me; I think Santorum is a son of a bitch, no question), that doesn't mean that he can't still win national elections.

Well its from mid-December but even Rasmussen "Republican Cheerleader" Reports has Obama beating Santorum in the general election 47%-37%.

Mitt Romney remains the only Republican candidate to ever lead Obama in polls, and even that is fairly infrequent. So it would seem a majority of voters find these politicians repellent.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Interesting to find out that Republican turnout is down from 2008 in the Iowa caucuses; and even in 2008, the GOP could only muster half the numbers that the Democrats got for the Obama/Hillary contest.

Well its from mid-December but even Rasmussen "Republican Cheerleader" Reports has Obama beating Santorum in the general election 47%-37%.

Mitt Romney remains the only Republican candidate to ever lead Obama in polls, and even that is fairly infrequent. So it would seem a majority of voters find these politicians repellent.

I wouldn't put too much stock in general election polls eleven months out. A lot's going to depend on how the economy does over the next six to nine months. Under the right circumstances, Woody Woodpecker could win as a Republican.

[Fez]

I wouldn't put too much stock in general election polls eleven months out. A lot's going to depend on how the economy does over the next six to nine months. Under the right circumstances, Woody Woodpecker could win as a Republican.

Oh definitely. But Santorum has an awful lot of ground to cover (both to become nominee and then to beat Obama) and I don't see him managing on either count.

In possibly related story, the White House announced today that Richard Cordray is going to be recess-appointed to head the Consumer Watch Bureau claiming that basically the pro forma sessions the Senate Republicans have been holding don't count. Certainly could be an early sign that this year Obama is going to be staking out as many populist positions as he can. Either way, I'm glad the agency is finally getting a director and there was no way Republicans were going to allow anyone to be confirmed.

[Seli]

...

I wouldn't put too much stock in general election polls eleven months out. A lot's going to depend on how the economy does over the next six to nine months. Under the right circumstances, Woody Woodpecker could win as a Republican.

As far as I have seen 'random republican' does well against Obama in the polls, it is just the actual existing candidates that can hardly get a lead.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Interesting to find out that Republican turnout is down from 2008 in the Iowa caucuses; and even in 2008, the GOP could only muster half the numbers that the Democrats got for the Obama/Hillary contest.

I would be the entire election ends up with historically low turnout. Whether people on this board agree or not there are a TON of people who really aren't seeing a difference between the parties, and aren't going to bother to show up and pull the lever for one side or the other of the same coin.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

I would be the entire election ends up with historically low turnout. Whether people on this board agree or not there are a TON of people who really aren't seeing a difference between the parties, and aren't going to bother to show up and pull the lever for one side or the other of the same coin.

I'd like to see numbers backing that up. My understanding is that people who don't vote have largely the same political views as people who do, they're just less politically informed (on average).

[S John]

I'm probably not going to vote for any of these fucktards.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

Taft was dead more than a decade before Goldwater ran for President. They did share commonalities on economic issues. But -- and its a big "but" -- the comparison glosses over a major divide within the GOP, and between the policies of Taft and Goldwater. Taft was from the isolationist wing of the GOP, and one of the foremost opponents of entry into WWII prior to Pearl Harbor. He didn't think the Soviet Union was a real threat, and even opposed U.S. entry into NATO in 1949. Goldwater, on the other hand, was a hardline, interventionist anti-communist, and made that the touchstone of his campaign.

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.

Again, that's true to some extent, but untrue in others. You, as an outsider, may see the GOP as being monolithic, but that's not how Republicans see it. There is the whole issue of "RINO's" -- Republicans In Name Only -- which is an appellation applied to anyone who is perceived as being too moderate or liberal. McCain was viewed this way in 2008, as are Romney and Huntsman right now. So those different wings do exist. The "establishment" of the party is generally perceived as being to the left of membership, likely because the establishment is more concerned with crafting messages that are appealing in general elections, and it is generally believed by most conservatives that "the Establishment" are the ones pushing hardest for Romney -- the most moderate/liberal (RomneyCare) of the major candidates.

Apart from that, there is a social conservative wing of the party, but there are also a great many Republicans either of a more moderate or more libertarian bent who don't agree with them either. If anything, the party is almost more fractured now. You've got the "social conservatives", whose standard-bearer looks to be Santorum, and that was a wing that didn't really exist back in the days of Taft because the parties agreed on many of those issus. Then there's the more moderate, establishment wing, who are following Romney, and the more libertarian wing, some of whom are following Paul, but others of whom are still undecided.

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.

Paul's core problem isn't the party "elites" or conservative media, though they don't like him either. His real problem is that his foreign policy views are anathema to the vast majority of the party. It's not that is message isn't getting out. It's that his message has gotten out, and in terms of foreign policy, most Republicans are horrified. He's well to the left of the President.

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.

Goldwater ran hardest on foreign policy issues. His opposition to the form the Civil Rights Act took did help him in the Deep South, but elsewhere, it was his foreign policy that largely defined his campaign.

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.

Agreed. The biggest difference is that Goldwater appealed to the base, core constituency of his party -- economic conservatives, proponents of a limited federal government, and particularly, hardline anti-communists. It was his foreign policy stances that became the centerpiece of the campaign against him, cumulating in the infamous mushroom-cloud ad. But at bottom, Goldwater ran as a core, conservative Republican.

In contrast, Paul isn't even attempting to appeal to the core of his party, and in fact derides it. He is deliberately taking a path of trying to appeal to a certain segment of the disaffected regardless of party affiliation.

Goldwater's path to the nomination was little different from Reagan's in 1976, except Reagan lost by a narrow margin in '76, and Goldwater won in 1964 after a hard-fought and acrimonious primary. But both ran by openly appealing to the more hardline elements of their party, which is sort of what Santorum is trying to do now. I think Paul's candidacy, really, is more akin to the typical third party effort, despite his running in the GOP primary.

[TerraPrime]

Yeah, I'm more in line with FLoW on the current state of the GOP. I think the Tea Party elements alone point to the existence of factions within the GOP, let alone the social issue dividing line. Perhaps the point is that those issues are only divisive in talks and not so at the polls? Or maybe the hardline elements have already pushed out enough of the moderates?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I wouldn't put too much stock in general election polls eleven months out. A lot's going to depend on how the economy does over the next six to nine months. Under the right circumstances, Woody Woodpecker could win as a Republican.

As much as I want to see the fucktard in the White House lose, I don't want to see the economy get to the point where Woody could win.

As a Republican, I'll be on record as saying I really dislike this crop of candidates. This was a very winnable election with a decent candidate, but none of them chose to run. So we get this group.

Santorum is rigid and humorless. He's gotten a free ride to this point, and I'm sure we'll see Romney launch on him. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out, because Romney is going to fight like hell in New Hampshire.

The really interesting question is what is going to happen if Romney's attacks on Santorum draw blood. It's almost funny -- Romney has proven adept at taking down other candidates, but he never seems to gain any support as a result. When he attacked Newt, folks leaning in Newt's direction went to Santorum. That creates a problem for Newt, because attacking Romney won't get those votes back. He's have to go after Santorum for that, and he likes Santorum, so that won't happen.

Newt's only hope is if Romney lands some body-blow ads on Santorum that causes him to lose support, which I suspect would just filter right on back to Newt. Newt would be smart to stick it out at least until South Carolina if he can, because if Santorum falters, he'd be the only remaining beneficiary.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, I'm more in line with FLoW on the current state of the GOP. I think the Tea Party elements alone point to the existence of factions within the GOP, let alone the social issue dividing line. Perhaps the point is that those issues are only divisive in talks and not so at the polls? Or maybe the hardline elements have already pushed out enough of the moderates?

Those lines matter at lot in the primary, but in the general, the choice is either vote GOP, vote independent, or stay home. I think Harry's right in that you don't see registered members of one party crossing lines in the general election very often.

[Galactus]

It was his foreign policy stances that became the centerpiece of the campaign against him, cumulating in the infamous mushroom-cloud ad. But at bottom, Goldwater ran as a core, conservative Republican.

LBJ had some other nice ads

[lupis42]

Goldwater's path to the nomination was little different from Reagan's in 1976, except Reagan lost by a narrow margin in '76, and Goldwater won in 1964 after a hard-fought and acrimonious primary. But both ran by openly appealing to the more hardline elements of their party, which is sort of what Santorum is trying to do now. I think Paul's candidacy, really, is more akin to the typical third party effort, despite his running in the GOP primary.

Very true - and an interesting facet to that, which is that Paul's bloc, such as it is, is much less likely to fall in behind the eventual GOP candidate than the rest of the GOP is to fall in behind Paul.

As much as I dislike Obama, I'll be really disappointed if he's up against Romney or Santorum.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

LBJ had some other nice ads

That's why it always amuses me when people say politics are so much nastier now than they used to be. The reality is that they generally were even nastier in the past.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Taft was dead more than a decade before Goldwater ran for President. They did share commonalities on economic issues. But -- and its a big "but" -- the comparison glosses over a major divide within the GOP, and between the policies of Taft and Goldwater.

Granted. But that's because conservative foreign policy ideas shifted with the Cold War, making Taft's position untenable.

Again, that's true to some extent, but untrue in others. You, as an outsider, may see the GOP as being monolithic, but that's not how Republicans see it.

Monolithic isn't what I said. "Ideologically coherent" is what I said. There can be factions in an ideologically coherent party. Four years ago, there was a Hillary faction and an Obama faction in the Democratic party, and much was made about the difference between them, even though their policy positions were largely the same. What happens, particularly during a primary, is that people confuse questions of emphasis and tactics with actual policy disagreements.

There are a lot of Republicans who identify primarily as social conservatives, but most of them are also economically conservative. There are a lot of Republicans who identify as economic conservatives, but they're largely pro-life and opposed to gay rights. Nobody supports the ACA, everybody wants to get rid of the CFPB, everybody (save Ron Paul) favors an aggressive stance against Iran, etc. Like I said before, there have been studies: the most liberal Republican in Congress is more conservative than the most conservative Democrat.

Goldwater ran hardest on foreign policy issues. His opposition to the form the Civil Rights Act took did help him in the Deep South, but elsewhere, it was his foreign policy that largely defined his campaign.

Goldwater--as I recall--was alienated from the New Right people who running his campaign, and ended up traveling with some of his core congressional staff while the New Right people were putting out race-baiting ads that Goldwater wasn't thrilled with. Which is to say, there were a bunch of different ideas about what Goldwater's campaign meant, and Goldwater's own opinion isn't necessarily the most historically significant. Certainly, his biggest successes were from his opposition to the CRA, not from his foreign policy.

[Shryke]

I would be the entire election ends up with historically low turnout. Whether people on this board agree or not there are a TON of people who really aren't seeing a difference between the parties, and aren't going to bother to show up and pull the lever for one side or the other of the same coin.

Low turnout for Republicans? Certainly.

There's no indications of low turnout for Democrats that I've seen though.

As far as I have seen 'random republican' does well against Obama in the polls, it is just the actual existing candidates that can hardly get a lead.

Which is basically saying "We like the idea of the Republican party, we just don't like the actual Republican party right now or any of it's candidates". Which is a recipe for low turnout.

[Fez]

Newt's only hope is if Romney lands some body-blow ads on Santorum that causes him to lose support, which I suspect would just filter right on back to Newt. Newt would be smart to stick it out at least until South Carolina if he can, because if Santorum falters, he'd be the only remaining beneficiary.

Its actually starting to sound like Newt is angling to become Santorum's VP more then anything else.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Actually, there was a great quote from a GOP Congressman that expresses the same idea that I was trying to express earlier:

“The real division in the GOP these days is not between moderates and conservatives. It is between pragmatists and ideologues. That same division plays itself out almost every day in the House and Senate GOP Conferences,” Cole continued. “The next GOP president will be forced to govern as a conservative to maintain the support of the GOP rank and file and its caucuses in both the House and Senate. Anyone who thinks we are going to nominate an Eisenhower, Nixon or Ford is out of touch with the GOP electorate. And any GOP politician who believes he can govern from the White House as anything other than a conservative is delusional.”