Ron Paul Will Take Iowa

While we’re on the subject of the presidential campaign, I told Hermione a week ago that I predict Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus by at least a 5 point margin, maybe 10. The polls since then haven’t been quite as favorable toward him, but I still hold to that prediction.

Caveat: I support Ron Paul in this election, and he’s one of the very few political candidates I’ve ever donated money to. It’s not that I agree with him on everything. I don’t. 10 years ago I would have, more or less. I’m a lot less libertarian now than I was then. However, I support Ron Paul because I think Vox nailed it:

There are actually only two distinct candidates in the 2012 election. There is Ron Paul, who represents the U.S. Constitution, and there is Newt Romney O’Bama, who represents the Bank Party.

But aside from my support, I actually think he’s going to pull off a victory in Iowa.

Why? Because it’s a caucus and not a primary. Love him or hate him, Ron Paul defies all logic as a politician. His entire political career is built around defying every rule of politics there is, yet he keeps getting re-elected to Congress. In the last three elections, he won his district by 60%, 70% and 80% of the vote respectively. His secret is that he spends insane amounts of time traveling around his home district and meeting with his constituents in person, and they love him for it. When the man gets in front of small groups, he has an ability to win them over that most politicians simply lack. The Iowa caucus plays completely to his strengths. He gets the chance to get directly in front of a lot of voters and argue his case, and this is where he thrives. Ron Paul is the 2011 Denver Broncos of caucuses. If it’s a close game in the 4th quarter, he’s going to win.

So, where does he go from there? Does his campaign have a snowball’s chance in hell? I think yes, but it’s still a long shot.

The talking heads love to go on about Ron Paul having a very low “ceiling” of voters, because polls tend to show high percentages of voters who “wouldn’t even consider” voting for him. However, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon among conservatives that I know, especially those who lean Libertarian. Many of them, publicly, will never admit to any Ron Paul leanings. But privately, they’ll admit that they might actually consider it except that he’s completely un-electable. To a degree, however, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. A candidate who is viewed this way will never, ever actually get elected – unless they actually accumulate enough support to start winning something.

Witness Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Dennis Kucinich, and various others. In every case, they are viewed as inconsequential (a view that’s definitely helped by the media insisting that it’s so). In every case, they have some decent level of support. In every case, they’ve flamed out at the national level because they can’t hit critical mass.

But on the other hand, look at Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. All three were viewed early on as completely un-electable. Yet once they passed a certain threshold, the dam broke and they found a huge base of support (well, until Carter actually became President and proved himself an unmitigated disaster).

I believe that if Ron Paul can actually win a primary/caucus or three early on in the race, he’s going to get a really big bounce for it. Historically, the candidate who wins Iowa gets an average 7 point bounce in the New Hampshire polls. At minimum, that’s enough to bounce Paul into a strong second place showing in New Hampshire, given his current poll standings. Depending upon where those 7 points come from, however, it could actually propel him into a neck and neck race with Romney.

If Paul wins Iowa, he doesn’t have to actually win New Hampshire to maintain momentum. A win in Iowa and a very strong second place in New Hampshire suddenly propels him from “second tier” candidate to “top tier.” Note also that the media’s been ignoring him all year. I think many are right that the powers that be don’t want a Ron Paul president, and they’re getting pressure to ignore him. But there are only two kinds of stories the media loves more than heroizing a victorious underdog – a) tearing down a hero and b) making themselves the center of the story. A Paul win in Iowa coupled with a strong second place (or better) standing in New Hampshire suddenly gives them the trifecta – all three stories at once. Ron Paul is the heroized underdog, Romney is the old hero to tear down, and the media’s year long refusal to take Paul seriously becomes their favoritest story of all – navel gazing. Paul’s supporters have been complaining for a year that they’re getting no coverage. If he actually manages to pull of this scenario, they’ll get more than they could ever want.

If a true miracle occurs and Paul manages to win both Iowa and New Hampshire (a real long shot, but I see it as within the realm of possibility), he’s not just top tier, he’s the new front runner – and the entire race changes. Bachman, Santorum, and Hunstman are all dropping out of the race sooner rather than later anyway. Most of their supporters are in the “anybody but Romney” category. If Ron Paul is the “not Romney” who’s making a good showing, he’ll be the next one to get a surge in the vote for it. What’s important to note here is that Paul’s standing in Iowa right now is most decidedly not yet another repeat of this phenomenon, as some are calling it. It’s quite obvious if you just look at the polling trends over the last year. The flash in the pan candidates have all had major spikes at various points. Paul’s numbers, by contrast, have been rising slowly and steadily all year. Add an “anybody but Romney” spike, and if (a big if) Paul can sustain it, and he might actually be able to go head to head with Romney.

At this point, frankly, he’s the only candidate who can. None of the other candidates even managed to get on the ballot in Virginia (yet somehow Gingrich and Perry are “serious” candidates and Paul is not). Rest assured that down the line voters will find this as evidence that they’re not really strong enough candidates. Really, if you can’t even get on the ballot how are you going to defeat Obama? As I already noted, Gingrich is already toast. Newt himself is the only one who doesn’t realize it yet. Bachman, Santorum, and Huntsman are all out after Iowa (New Hampshire at the latest). Contrary to their public protestations, none of them has the money or organization to campaign beyond those states. Perry might stay in it a bit longer, but it’s going to be hard to keep going after he proves that he can’t win Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina (which he will prove). Ron Paul actually has an organization in place this time to build a real campaign, not just an “I’m going to raise some issues” (Ron Paul 2008) or “I’m going to do some shameless self promotion and put myself in the limelight” (Michelle Bachman 2012) run.

With that said, other than Iowa (which I stand behind – Ron Paul will most likely win, and by a larger than expected margin), this is all still a bit of a long shot. I’d give it 20-30% odds of actually happening (50-60% if he actually manages to win New Hampshire and Iowa both). Romney’s got the entire establishment and a shitload of money behind him.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people out there who are really pissed off right now and are looking for some real change in Washington. I think a lot of voters are starting to realize that Ron Paul is the only candidate who offers them any real hope of that at all. The battle he faces, however, is that quite a few people aren’t particularly thrilled about (and many are downright frightened of) the kind of change he offers.