True, but I do have some doubts about Iowa on the whole. Could it be that voters in the Iowa Republican primary tend to be much more socially conservative and elect a candidate that can't perform in later primary states while Iowa Democrats vote differently? After all, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in 2008 for the Republicans and flamed out a little after that.
You say they'll still have Pawlenty. They won't. Why? Iowa. I don't argue that winning Iowa means Bachmann is a viable nominee. I don't believe she is. But, leaving out the donations she'll receive which are the lifeblood of any campaign and will continue to provide her a means by which to affect the debate, her lead there will be decisive in moving money toward her, Romney and Perry and away from everyone else. Iowa was the only shot for Pawlenty. Likewise Cain, Gingrich and Santorum. The money that was going to the four of them will not go to them anymore and so they will be forced out of the race. That will change everything, with regard to not only fundraising but to polling. The race is close enough that when those campaigns go away their numbers could well determine a new frontrunner. Iowa changes so much, in every single cycle. You could pick any presidential primary year and, by looking at the before and after, clearly see how the dynamic of every single race has changed after Iowa. Huckabee wasn't a factor until Iowa. He remained a contender for many months after as a result of his surprise showing there and, by doing so, he meaningfully impacted the debate. Obama was having trouble hanging on to big donors who, looking mostly at national polls, believed he had already lost the race to Hillary before Iowa even caucused. His win there was the single most significant factor in propelling him to the presidency. And the fact that such a homogenous, white state would select the first serious black contender ever was pretty historic too. It took Obama from also-ran to super-powered overnight. Hillary had to pull off a difficult and surprising upset in NH, where Obama surged in polls after Iowa, to make it a race again. Those are just the examples from the last cycle.
I don't disagree with that. But I think it's also probably equally true that no Ron Paul supporter would ever switch to any other Republican candidate either.
Also, to wtfamonkey mostly I guess, I find it extraordinary to think that the tea party would only vote for Bachmann or Paul when there couldn't possibly be two more unlike candidates. Ron Paul is a libertarian and believes everyone should be left to their private preferences. He is not only not a social conservative -- he actually thinks social issues shouldn't even be a matter of discussion in government except to overturn any law prohibiting sex, drugs or (what the hell) rock and roll. Then he believes social issues ought not even be a matter for debate or even consideration. He doesn't give a **** about gays or potheads. Bachmann, by contrast, is the most socially conservative candidate in the field by a mile. And not only that, but those positions have always been the ones that have most defined her. So do tea partiers want government in their bedrooms (or the living rooms where they might keep their bongs) or out of them? In nearly every way, Bachmann and Paul could not be more different. The idea that they would be the top picks of the tea party would only be evidence of its schizophrenia.
I'm not really sure. I'm not that into policy and I'm not very bright about it. But, much like sports, I feel like I learn a lot about human nature by observing the fight and all the nuance with which it plays out. As with sports, I constantly find meaningful metaphors for or associations with my own life and life experience. And politics goes directly to what people believe and what they value. Through political races, we are able to see what is changing in our society and how. What could really be more interesting than that with the possible exception of art, a thing with which I am also obsessed.
I agree that Bachman and Paul are WAY different. I guess thats the split among tea partiers. But I would say the tea party would lean a lot more towards Ron Pauls camp than Bachmans. Paul is coined the "god father" of the tea party movement. He was the one that talked about conservatism and liberty before the tea party was even started. So I would tend to think Tea partiers would be on Ron Pauls side if they had to pick one or the other. Also, I would also say Bachmans numbers are grossly inflated with this straw poll. She made everybody that she gave tickets to vote for her. I don't know if they do this type of shenanigans at every straw poll but it seems desperate to me.
Mostly though I guess its just a habit of mine, like reading comic books or following the minutiae of a basketball team.
don't look towards to me to explain the crazy reasoning behind most of the tea party actions. I'm a Ron Paul man myself, after him I'd go through a ton of Democrats before even thinking about another Republican. Perry will indeed steal those votes from Bachmann. If I had to guess I'd say the tea partiers who side with Bachmann are there without a hint of knowledge of what the tea party was started for, they just go with the flow and think they're making a grand stand against things. Romney won the straw vote in 2008, and Huckabee won the caucus. It doesn't look like a good judge on who will win the nomination. Fundraising and publicity, of course, but it seems Iowans are also a slight step in the wrong direction in what the national republicans as a whole want.
My bad. I meant wtfamonkey. I went back and edited it. By Romney and Huckabee doing well in Iowa, they helped to push Giuliani and Thompson (and actually almost McCain too) out of their positions as perceived contenders and they soaked up a lot of the cash that would have gone to those two guys otherwise. It changed the weather of that race. Romney and Huckabee went on while candidates that would otherwise have been more serious and for longer were forced to drop out. Which, of course, changed everything and eventually led to a McCain nomination because Iowa had so confused the race that the nearly dead candidate was able to pull off an upset in NH and restart his campaign. Do you remember how poorly off he was before Iowa upset the apple cart? I am relying completely on memory here and not checking my facts, so I apologize if I get the details wrong somewhere. But what happened in the last GOP primary, as a result of Iowa, was much like what happened with Democrats in 2004. Gephardt lost there and it was the end of his campaign. Dean won there and almost ended Kerry's. Kerry, like McCain was pronounced dead after Iowa and had to claw his way back into contention. The only reason it worked was that so much of the establishment found Dean so unpalatable. The situation was similar with McCain vs. Romney and Huckabee. In each of those races, Iowa changed the dynamic and ultimately had a profound impact on the rest of the race.
I'm actually way more into art but that's what I do for a living so I discuss it all day every day. This is really the only place I discuss politics. And it's not like there's a forum (or a market for one) dedicated to discussion of art here.
I hope you're not a Bachmann fan. One of the few things I took away from Iowa's debate the other night was Pawlenty slapping Bachmann down. Yet she goes on to win the straw poll. On a sidenote, Paul looked as strong as he always does and I thought Huntsman had a really good show, although he was never a serious contender anyway.
