Finally, after a year of unrelenting speculation, we are going to hear from actual voters. In seven days, Iowa kick’s off its “First-in-the-Nation” caucus, which will begin to answer pressing questions about this year’s voters and ultimately, the Republican nominee.
Is Donald Trump for Real: Trump took the lead nationally in the Republican race in July 2015 and has never lost it. The billionaire took over first place in Iowa – from Scott Walker – at the beginning of August, and though he has temporarily lost that lead twice – once to Carson and once to Cruz – he has never seen his support drop below 20 percent.
Trump has managed this feat despite a thoroughly documented history of positions antithetical to Republicans and conservatives, an unheard of reliance on personal vitriol and “policy proposals” that are at turns vacuous, contradictory, naïve and in certain cases, blatantly unconstitutional. Trump has belittled or berated the handicapped, women and war heroes, and according to Trump himself, could kill someone on 5th Avenue in NY and not lose any support.
There is no modern precedent for Trump.
Pat Buchanan’s insurgent challenge to Bush 41 in 1992 and Howard Dean’s populist campaign in 2004 come to mind, but both of these candidates were thoroughly grounded in their respective political views. Trump, who has previously identified himself as a Democrat, praised President Obama and Hillary Clinton, supported the Stimulus and called for national health care and higher taxes, is not a conservative or a Republican – yet polling indicates he attracts these voters based on an anti-elitist, populist message. Whether Republicans in Iowa will vote these passions is the question.
The Caucuses will put this to the test.
731,000 Iowans voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. But only 121,000 came out to vote in that year’s Republican Caucuses. For all the intense media focus on Iowa, only a fraction of its overall voting population has participated. Historically, those voters tend to be highly motivated social conservatives. The last three Republican winners in Iowa reflect this (Bush 43 ’00, Huckabee ’08, Santorum ’12). This is not a natural constituency for “Two Corinthians walk into a bar….” Trump. These voters are Ted Cruz’s natural constituency.
Therefore, to win, Trump needs to expand participation. Genuine political movements have done this in the past, and catalyzed candidacies as serious and substantive. In the Democratic race in 2008, the Clinton and Obama camps estimated potential Iowa Caucus participation at between 150-180,000. The final total was a blow-out 240,000. Of the newcomers who participated for the first time, 57% went for Obama, fundamentally changing assumptions about the race, putting Mrs. Clinton on the defensive and creating Obama as a new and unexpected favorite for the nomination. For Trump to win Iowa, he will have to do something similar, getting non-traditional Republicans to the Caucus sites.
What Happens to Ben Carson’s Support: On October 26th, Ben Carson was leading in Iowa with 29 percent. Less than 90 days later, he languishes at 9 percent, with a national campaign in full disarray. What do Ben Carson supporters do?
Since January 2015, Carson has maintained a core of between 6-7 percent in Iowa, and it is entirely possible that, these voters may hang on regardless of Carson’s increasingly bleak long-term outlook, as a matter of principle. However, pragmatic Carson supporters may take the leap on the best candidate to win the nomination coming out of Iowa, and here, again, Ted Cruz has an edge. If Carson voters waiver, it could provide the cushion that Cruz needs to put him over the top.
A much less likely, but more provocative scenario would have Carson picking up support from voters turned off by the hand-to-hand combat between Cruz and Trump, with evangelicals throwing their support to the mild-mannered and courteous Carson and delaying the emergence of a true front-runner.
Does Rubio Lock Down the “Establishment” Lane: Marco Rubio has held 3rd place in Iowa polling since mid-December, amid the Carson collapse and very strong debate performances. Media hype about surging mainstream campaigns by Christie et.al. have not been borne out in polling, with Bush, Christie and Kasich locked at 3-5 percent.
Iowa will provide escape velocity for one – at the outside a maximum of two candidates grouped with the “Establishment” label. Those candidates will be best positioned to capitalize on their new notoriety in NH eight days later – with a much more practical and common sense set of voters – particularly if the “Establishment” win exceeds expectations. Right now, Rubio is that candidate, but he is in jeopardy.
Cruz, recognizing his dominance in Iowa – and potential weakness in NH with less socially conservative voters – has been attacking Rubio nearly as much as he’s been attacking Trump. Bush and Christie, for their part, have focused fire on Rubio, knowing that a clean Rubio finish in the top-tier complicates a resurgence in NH and beyond.
Rubio’s overall numbers have fallen about 30 percent since he took third place. At least initially, it appears that Cruz benefited from Rubio’s decline, but in the last few days, both candidates have lost support. In the meantime, no “Establishment” candidate has managed to gain traction.
One note on polls. More than any state, because of the organizational uncertainties built into a caucus, Iowa is difficult to predict. While the Real Clear Politics composite average correctly identified Huckabee and Romney as the 1st and 2nd place winners in 2008, 2012 was an entirely different story. Rick Santorum was in 7th place one week before Iowa in the last Caucus. He surged from 8 points to 25 points and claimed 1st place, just ahead of Mitt Romney. Ron Paul, who had been in 1st place, came in 3rd.
As with all things Iowa, in the final measure, it will come down to ground game and voter turnout.
America is depending on you, Iowa. Don’t send us someone who can’t win the presidency.