Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Post-Iowa Questions for Hugh Hewitt

1. After your man Mitt Romney’s bad beat in Iowa, you wrote that:

Romney wins some delegates tonight and keeps winning them in batches as the weeks unfold. in Wyoming, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. So does McCain.  So does Fred. So does Huck

Glory be --1976 all over again, with more than twice as many candidates.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. First, Ronald Reagan was able to drag out the 1976 primaries all the way to Kansas City because he had a base of support that was both broad and deep. He was the standard-bearer of the conservative wing, to whom many people were already deeply committed. Moreover, he had generated the same sort of rock star enthusiasm that Obama is generating this year. As Fred Barnes writes:

To this day, I have never seen any candidate in America arouse crowds the way Reagan did. His riff about keeping the Panama Canal prompted his audiences to go practically beserk.

Nobody in the current GOP crop is generating that sort of loyalty and enthusiasm. Once, somebody generates momentum, there’s liable to be a strong shift to that candidate.

Second, campaigns have gotten so expensive that some of the candidates are going to start running out of money really soon. Candidates without substantial resources are going to have real problems making it through Super Duper Tuesday. The candidates who come out of New Hamshire and South Carolina with momentum are going to get tons of free money, as well as new cash contributions, that will them enormously in doing the sort of mass retail campaigning that a 24 state primary is going to demand. How much more of his own money do you think Romney is willing to spend?

In sum, I just don’t see the process lasting much past February 5th. Comments?

2. According to the Boston Globe, “Mitt Romney held 237 meetings with Iowa voters, visited 67 Iowa counties, [and] aired $7 million worth of TV ads.” At one point Romney had a double-digit lead in Iowa, yet he ended up losing by almost 10 points. Turning to New Hamsphire, we recall that Mitt Romney was governor of next door Massachusetts. Evangelicals make up a smaller percentage of the electorate than was the case in Iowa, while fiscal conservatives are a much higher one. If Romney loses in New Hampshire, where does he win next?

3. Political science professor and conservative blogger Steven Taylor says: “Barring a big win in the NH, this is the beginning of the end for Mr. Mitt.” Isn’t it fair to say that he has to win New Hampshire to remain viable?

Update 3A. Ed Morrissey wrote that:

What does this mean for Romney? It’s a body blow. He spent somewhere between $8-9 million and came up far short of a victory. That directly reflects on his next race, where John McCain has taken the lead in his backyard. If he can’t do any better against McCain than he did against Huckabee, Republican voters will rightly question whether Romney can win anywhere, even with the huge funding advantage he has had.

Is he wrong too? If so, why?

Update 4. Do you really believe the market is tanking because your man Mitt lost yesterday? There comes a point at which boosterism becomes self-parody.