5 Thoughts on Iowa (in about 500 words)

1. The Polls Tell You Something…

Real Clear Politics has a current running aggregate of the most recent Iowa polls, showing Trump and Cruz on top, with Rubio and Carson far below, and the rest in a muddle below 5%. While Trump might be leading it would be foolish to call Iowa a slam dunk for him at this point because the polls tell you something…

2. …But Not Everything

Ben Shapiro wrote a great little piece recently where he reasonably questioned the Iowa polls. Often, candidates and supporters will denigrate polls because they don’t say candidate x is winning—but Shapiro questioned the polls for the following reasons: the Iowa Polls are historically inaccurate, the Polls are broad (i.e. possibly not screening their samples appropriately, and many Iowa voters make last second decisions), and the ground game in Iowa isn’t favoring Trump. Historically Santorum didn’t poll well and still "won" Iowa. What does this mean? It means that Trump and Cruz probably will do well in Iowa but it probably doesn’t mean a blowout, and it probably doesn’t mean something like a Christie win. It’s likely just a rough estimate at best. The sample sizes are small, and potentially the margins for error large. And a lot still hangs on…

3. The Donald-Free Debate

Donald Trump is skipping the debate. Admittedly this is odd for a perceived top-tier candidate—yes, Rand Paul did it recently but arguably he had nothing to lose, and Trump does—if the polls are even somewhat reasonably accurate. Trump’s perspective is likely this: he’s telling the media to go to hell, and telling them he doesn’t need them. It’s somewhat a given that every candidate worships at the Altar of the Media during election season but Trump is making a point not to. Or course this could backfire and Cruz’s observation that Trump is skipping out on answering the hard questions for Iowa voters might be the perception that takes hold among voting Iowans.

4. The Debate Must Go On

Chris Matthews thinks no one is going to watch a debate between two Cuban guys, but then again the closest Matthews has ever been close to a real Cuban is probably the last time he paraded himself past a janitor in the hall. The truth is that if Iowa voters notoriously decide last-second, they’re watching and pondering. Cruz will take shots at Trump, Rubio will target Cruz and try to generate more steam, and the rest are praying for a break through and a good performance.

5. Iowa Isn’t Everything…

The 2012 primary proved this brutally. Rick Santorum carried the popular vote in the early January caucus and had dropped out by early April. Mitt Romney came in a hotly contested second, but it was Ron Paul’s little delegate rebellion that ultimately gave him the win from 3^rd place. In the end it didn’t matter; Barack Obama won the 6 electoral votes by nearly 6% over Mitt Romney. Do Iowa voters matter? Certainly, but historically they may not be a good predictor for the rest of the race.

Fight Night in Denver: Romney’s Big Chance

            One of the best quotes about Mitt Romney’s debate performance comes from Rush Limbaugh. During the GOP primaries Limbaugh said, “Mitt Romney does not win debates. He survives them.” Back during the primaries survival was good enough. Newt wowed crowds once or twice, but otherwise fell flat. Ron Paul’s disjointed rants and Rick Santorum’s obvious discomfort at the debates made for a constant “less than par” performance from these two contenders. Mitt simply had to show up, breathe air, and avoid eating his own shoes and he “won”.

            That won’t cut it two days from now in Denver. There will be no passive victories in this fight. While Rick, Ron, and Newt all died on the mat from self-inflicted blood loss Obama will do no such thing. Mitt simply remaining standing will not motivate the 15% in the middle who will swing this election one way or the other. Mitt will have to not only get on offense, but to do so with uncharacteristic aggressiveness. Obama’s overall approval is largely negative at this point, so if the middle sees someone that can and will bloody Obama in the debates they may respond very favorably to a contender with a strong voice and a definitive message.

            The DNC has outright stated that historically the challenger usually wins the first debate—possibly in an effort to do preemptive damage control for the president and bank on a weak Romney follow up debate performance. For Romney the challenge isn’t to “win” per se as a “win” may not cut it. His challenge will be to establish a pattern of effective, aggressive offense on Obama’s record, and thus generate momentum going into the next two debates. Providing Romney does his job well in the debates, Obama should be in shock by the end of the first debate, sputtering angrily at the end of the second, and dazed, punch-drunk and looking for an exit by the third. If Obama looks lost and outgunned he’ll look like a poor choice for a leader—and that’s Mitt’s goal. Unfortunately for Mitt, that kind of unprecedented result will take an unprecedented performance on his own part. Mitt has a great opportunity in Denver with the “challenger” advantage, and Obama’s record for ammo. If he fails to capitalize on this first round, the undecided may be too busy following reality TV to give Mitt another chance to make his case. He might not have enough time left to strike out and do serious damage to Obama in the eyes of the undecided voter. Mitt won the GOP primaries arguably because he was “safe” compared to his competition. But now the tables are turned, and it is Obama who is the “safe” candidate. For Mitt Romney, it is time to be dangerous. Nothing less than success will do, and if Romney fails, time, and history may not forgive him for it come November.