Christian Conservatives Forcing Presidential Candidates to Skip the Caucuses? Hardly.
- Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 4:30
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,244 views
- 15 comments
In addition to the article about the growing possibility that Mitt Romney may skip the 2012 Iowa Caucuses which appeared on this website yesterday, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic also wrote a story about lessons learned in Iowa during the 2008 caucuses. The point that Ambinder makes in his article is that, unless you are beloved by conservative Christians, candidates would be better off skipping the first in the nation caucuses.
These types of articles are nothing new. It just seems as if they are occurring much earlier than in previous years. The problem I have with articles like Ambinder’s is that the data doesn’t back up the claim his story makes. We all know that Mike Huckabee won the 2008 caucuses, but he didn’t win it with 50 percent of the vote. He won with less than 35 percent. After reading stories like this, one would think that more establishment candidates like Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani have no base of support in Iowa. Yet, those four candidates combined made up 55 percent of the total vote in the 2008 Iowa caucuses.
When looking back at the 2008 caucuses, the one thing that leaps off of the page is that Mike Huckabee ended up being the main option for values voters who participated in the Iowa caucuses. That’s not to say the some Christian conservatives didn’t support Romney, Thompson, and McCain, but most of them drifted towards their natural home with Huckabee. Had Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo remained in the race come caucus time, the support of the state’s social conservatives would have been split.
After reading countless articles on the Iowa caucuses, you might think that the past winners were Pat Robertson who finished 2nd, 12 points back in 1988, Pat Buchanan who finished 2nd, 3 points back in 1996, or Alan Keyes who finished 3rd, 27 points back in 2000. It’s a disservice that the traditional media continues to paint the caucuses as some sort of Christian revival contest. Christian conservative candidates have done well in the caucuses, but many times their voting-block has been split between multiple candidates, which has prevented them from winning.
Before 2008, the only candidates who had won the caucuses were Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole(twice), and George W. Bush. The only time a Christian conservative candidate has won the caucuses was in 2008 when Mike Huckabee was the consensus candidate for values voters.
Mike Huckabee’s victory in the caucuses was no doubt a surprise to many, but especially so for the traditional media. However, Huckabee’s victory can be chalked-up to his outstanding communications skills, fantastic timing, and a lot of luck, not just the wide support of Christian conservatives.
Huckabee’s communication skills allowed him to outshine his opponents like Tancredo and Brownback. These skills also allowed him to hold his own in most of the presidential debates, making him a more credible candidate than the others who were in the second tier.
Many thought that Huckabee was finished before the Ames Straw Poll. There were rumors that he might return to Arkansas for a run for the U.S. Senate, and even people within his own campaign urged him not to participate in the straw poll because they thought it would bring an end to his campaign. Huckabee finished a surprising second to Mitt Romney, and his high finish pushed Brownback out of the race.
Lady luck was also on Huckabee’s side. Before the Straw Poll, Huckabee staffers were seen throwing away supporter cards because these particular people said that they would go to the event but needed a ride. While the Romney campaign was meticulously calling through the list of previous caucus attendees for almost a year, the Huckabee campaign couldn’t afford to even purchase the list from the Republican Party of Iowa. Instead, the Huckabee campaign sent lists of registered Republicans for its supporters to call through. Huckabee’s campaign was able to succeed because its supporters were passionate about their candidate, not because it was a well oiled political machine.
Romney, on the other hand, was a victim of his own early success. As I’ve written before, the Romney campaign plan was excellent. If there is anything to critique from the spring and summer of 2007, it would be how boastful the campaign had become. They had good reasons to celebrate their early accomplishments, but all of their saber rattling scared away their main competition – John McCain.
When John McCain sought exile from Iowa in the mountains of New Hampshire, Romney was all of the sudden seen as the moderate candidate in the caucuses. Romney’s past statements on social issues like abortion and the footage from his U.S. Senate debate with Ted Kennedy haunted his campaign. This also prevented him for garnering the support of many Christian conservatives in Iowa.
Romney’s campaign then went into its shell in the final months leading up to the caucuses. Instead of participating in a prime-time Fox News debate, they opted for a weekday mid-afternoon debate with the Des Moines Register. At the time that the Romney campaign made its decision, they were confident that they would win Iowa. Yet, when the debate took place in late December, Huckabee was surging and Romney needed to beat up his opponent. It is likely that he would have had that opportunity in a Fox News debate, but the rules and procedures of the Des Moines Register debate were strange and didn’t allow candidates the opportunity to do much of anything. The Register debate was so bad that many in the national media laughed on- air about it.
Despite all of that, Romney could have still won the caucuses had his campaign reached out and found new people to participate in the caucus process. Only 118,000 Republicans participated in the 2008 caucuses. Despite setting a record for caucus attendance, the 118,000 caucus goers means that almost 500,000 registered Republicans didn’t participate. That’s a big pool of potential voters for campaigns to go after, yet very few do. In addition to registered Republicans, Romney could have also sought the support from the thousands of Mormons who live in Iowa. In a low turnout caucus, finding small pockets of support can mean the difference between winning and losing.
I think the notion that some candidates should skip Iowa because of the state’s Christian conservatives is complete nonsense. I think any type of candidate can find enough support to win if they are willing to think outside of the box and try to identify as many supporters as it will realistically take to win.
The one thing that I have learned in my time in Iowa politics is that Iowans will give candidates a fair shake no matter who they are. I’ve seen evidence of that already this year. Hundreds of people have turned out to see George Pataki, John Ensign, and Rick Santorum at the American Future Fund lecture series. While Ensign developed some serious character problems after his visit, both Pataki and Santorum were well received even though they represent opposite sides of the political spectrum.
Iowans take their role in the caucuses very seriously. To think that they blindly vote for candidates based on social issues alone is insulting. If these national pundits really want to have a better understanding of Iowa, they should come to Iowa and follow the candidates from event to event during the next caucus season. If they really listened to the questions that people ask and listened to what’s on people’s minds, they would learn a lot about Iowa and the caucuses.
I think they would be surprised at the diversity of questions asked by Iowa’s politically savvy electorate. And they might actually learn something.
Note: Kay Henderson makes a great point in a blog post from yesterday. While McCain didn’t focus on Iowa, he visited the state on a regular basis. To say he skipped Iowa like he did in 2000 would be a stretch.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 452 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
15 Comments on “Christian Conservatives Forcing Presidential Candidates to Skip the Caucuses? Hardly.”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
this is really starting to get to the churchies. i agree if Huck runs, then the other conservative candidates should skip Iowa. do like McCain did and just make appearances, and yard signs, but don’tv commit to winning the state. right now the Churchies in the GOP are in charge. we have 3 planks but only 1 of them is the focus of our newly elected head of the Iowa GOP.
Lobo,
If Huckabee runs he is going to be expected to win Iowa. Those expectations would allow other candidates like a Tim Pawlenty or a handful of other to be the surprise candidate on caucus night if he won or finished a close second. There is no reason for any candidate to bypass Iowa.
Romney’s debates were with Ted Kennedy, not John Kennedy.
Exactly, Craig..
No candidate who has ever bypassed Iowa has gone on to win the GOP nomination..period.
Now lets be honest here..the 2012 caucus has the potential to be a HIGH turnout for the GOP in Iowa. If the 2010 election results bode well for Republicans, more people are going to be motivated by the opportunity to defeat Obama in 2012.
So, for whomever decides to run…they’re going to have to have a sharp, well run grassroots campaign in Iowa in order to have any chance of doing well come Caucus 2012. Doing the Romney 08′ strategy isn’t going to work in 2012…
A candidate has to have two things in order to be successful here Iowa…1. authenticity. The biggest reason why Huckabee was so successful here was because he came across as the most authentic candidate to people here. I heard more than one person tell me that Romney was saying the “right things” but he came across looking like a used car salesman…
Perception is very often reality in the political world..and Romney will have much to overcome in that department if he chooses to run in 2012.
The second thing a candidate needs to be successful is as I stated before..a sharp, well run, grass roots organization. You can spend all the money in the world..put out all the commercials and mailings, and website, etc… but if you don’t have boots on the ground getting people organized to turn out for your candidate on Caucus Night… you’re dead in the water.
Perfect case in points would be the failure of Romney to win Iowa and Ron Paul to have an even respectable finish in Iowa. Both candidates spent tens of millions of dollars in Iowa..but they had very poor grassroots operations in the state… For a caucus, money does not always = votes…
I think it would be foolish for Romney to skip Iowa. There is no way Mike Huckabee is going to be President of the United States and most people realize this. We will need a strong candidate to run against Obama. If Romney can’t manage Mike Huckabee in Iowa how is he going to defeat Obama nationally?
you guys really need to learn the “McCain lesson” John was nearly out of the Caucus when he was running out of funds. he finished in 4th in the Caucus and had ZERO first place wins in any county… hell even Ron Paul had one 1st place finish (Jefferson county) . McCain gained traction in NH where they allow same day party switching. he did not need to run in Iowa, he just needed a presence.
why bother running and spending money for 2nd or 3rd place especially if you go into Iowa as a front runner.
Lobo,
McCain did well in NH partially because his back was up against the wall in Iowa. When he was a “front runner” in Iowa he tried to be a populist, people-pleasing candidate. Once he ran out of money it was like backing a pitbull into a corner. He came out swinging. He had nothing to lose. He went back to the old McCain and the Straight Talk Express. There is a night-and-day difference between McCain’s debates before and after he had to let much of his Iowa staff go. Once he got the nomination he went back to trying to please everyone and he ended up losing for it.
Lobo..
You want to know WHY McCain was able to get that 4th place in Iowa? Very simple..because you had a candidate like Ron Paul..who had spent MILLIONS in Iowa, but had no grassroots organization in place…for the amount of coin that Paul was raising and spending….the fact he could only win ONE county was pretty much the end of the “Ron Paul REvoLution”
You had candidates like Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson and Sam Brownback who withdrew from the race BEFORE the caucuses because of the poor campaigns they had run.
Heck, if Rudy Giuliani had even spent a token amount of time in Iowa campaigning for the caucuses and acting like he WANTED the nomination, instead of basically insulting the state..he probably could have scored a 3rd or 4th place finish and had made McCain completely irrelevant.
Every candidate spent millions in Iowa.
According to Spending totals from iowacaucus.biz and vote totals from theiowacaucus.com candidates spent the following $s per vote.
Candidate
Huckabee $173.63
Romney $2,922.55
Thompson $1,223.90
McCain $1,939.35
Paul $1,714.66
Giuliani $11,752.61
Hunter $4,327.22
HawkCR1 please stop spewing your bile about how poorly Dr. Paul performed for how much he spent. His return on investment was better than half the field.
Bunce… You sound like you’re a Ron Pauler..and that’s fine..but guess what….Paul ran a TERRIBLE campaign. Again..if you spend the amount of coin that Paul did on ads, mailings, tv/radio spots, web efforts, etc…and you only finish 5th?? He only won ONE county in Iowa…and ONE county in New Hampshire…man, that’s just PITIFUL.
The Ron Paul campaign spent millions, tried to fool people that there was some great movement afoot….and guess what? There really wasn’t much to it…Period, end of story.
Spending tons of money does not guarantee you will do well in the Iowa Caucuses… A candidate MUST have an outstanding grassroots organization behind it..otherwise..its just money wasted.
Giuliani had pulled out of Iowa long before the Caucuses..and had focused his efforts squarely on Florida….he spent virtually no money in Iowa or New Hampshire…and as a result..he got portrayed as not really being serious about wanting the nomination..
@hawkCr1
Ron Paul did poorly for several reason but “poor” grassroots organization was not one of them. Paul got his first money bomb on the 5th of november, which was probably a bit too late. he definitely got the best vote/per dollar spent of all of them.
he also had to run against both parties, he was kept out of “republican” christian debate in iowa, kept out of the fox news debate and as Pat Buchanan said , he is probably too conservative to get the nomination. also he was just too old to win the nomination.
the sad part about Iowa is that the state has moved left. as more rural people migrate to the city we lose even more, Iowa will become irrelevant if Huck runs again.
Pawlenty would be an idiot to skip Iowa. He could do very well here and doesn’t have a natural advantage anywhere else. Romney’s problem is that he’s not a lock to win any of the other states if he skips Iowa.
LoboSolo..
If you’re that enamored with Ron Paul that you’re going to delude yourself into thinking that Ron Paul had some massive grassroots operation..well…good luck with that. If you spend the kind of money that Paul did, spend as much time in the state as he did..and finish FIFTH….well..that speaks for itself Lobo… No excuses for it..
If T-Paw does run for President…he might very well be a front runner very quickly due to his obvious status as a Governor of Minn-e-sota, which we have come to find out is Native American for “We can’t count ballots”
Oh and Lobo.. one more point I forgot… Bet you havent taken a look at the counties that Huckabee won in 08′ Huckabee won virtually every county in Iowa except for a small strip in far western Iowa..and a smattering of counties in the 1st CD. Romney won those counties…
If the state was “moving towards the left” as you put it…then wouldnt you think that Romney would have done FAR better in Iowa than he did?
HawkCR1, you’re just jealous because Al Franken is awesome.
I believe Lobo was referring to the general population of Iowa “moving to the left,” as indicated by the voter registration advantage Democrats have now. That doesn’t mean the Republican Party or the universe of Republican caucus-goers have moved to the left.
HawkCR1 – Dr. Paul got a return of 1 vote for every $1,714.66 that he spent in Iowa. Giulliana, Hunter, and Romney all performed far worse than him. McCain and Paul both finished almost in a dead heat in Iowa with Dr Paul coming out a little ahead. Thompson did much better, and Huckabee accomplished unheard of results spending only $173.63 per vote in the Iowa caucuses.
In that list Dr. Paul finished 2nd for votes per $ because Huckabee’s ROI is so insanely low that it cannot really even be compared. Hats off to the Hucksters they got the job done and did it for pennies on the dollar compared to everyone else.
As far as “grassroots movements” Dr. Paul collected over 4.2 million dollars inside 19 hours from over 35000 contributors, and his ongoing R3V0Lution at Campaignforliberty.com has 220000+ members. His R3V0Lution has backed up its #s with action by gaining 304 cosponsors for Dr. Pauls Audit the Fed bill (HR 1207) in the US House and 30 cosponsors in the Senate. 3/4 of the American people are now in favor of Auditing the Federal Reserve and 2 years ago if you had asked someone on the street what the Fed was they would have just given you a strange look and walked on.
Granted HR1207 and S604 have not been entirely a CFL movement, but they have done the lion’s share of the work. Like it or not, the R3V0Lution is here to stay and it is making waves.