Iowa Caucuses the signal beginning of the end for many in Republican Field

Yesterday, I began by arguing that the Iowa caucuses were foolishly important. It’s a trumped up exercise made important by the political entities drawing power and profit from them.

Winning the Iowa Caucuses, as Mitt Romney did by apparently just 8 votes, certainly won’t assure you a nomination. Much like a sporting event where you can lose but not win the game in the first quarter, you can lose in Iowa, but not “win.”

Michele Bachmann found that out the hard way, losing in her home state, a place she actually won the straw poll a few months ago. The beating, and frankly it wasn’t close, has caused Bachmann to suspend her bid at the White House.

In other words, she’s done. Rick Perry nearly called it quits last night, saying he’d return to Texas to reassess his campaign, the same language Herman Cain used when he dropped out.

Whether or not Perry decides to head to South Carolina (he tweeted he planned to do so), he too is finished.

In all likelihood, Santorum’s strong showing in Iowa will be relegating to a historical footnote next to a story about the closest caucus anyone can remember.

Santorum still holds just 6% of Republican support which is unlikely to change given his utter lack of charisma, not to mention the heinously homophobic remarks Santorum became famous for. Furthermore, his plan to resuscitate manufacturing jobs is exactly the kind of free market tampering conservatives detest.

That means we’ll leave Iowa with an officially trimmed field, but in reality, the pecking order of Republicans is mostly unchanged.

We still have the front-runner (Romney), the challenger (Gingrich) and the wild card (Paul).

Together they account for about 65% of Republican support nationwide, meaning the race is still presumably wide open.

Only it’s not.

Romney wasn’t supposed to win in Iowa, but he did, albeit by a small margin. The fact that he went toe to toe with Ron Paul and his conservative counterparts after a disappointing showing in the Straw Poll demonstrates how formidable Romney can be as a campaigner.

Romney is holding a commanding lead in New Hampshire, the next scheduled stop for this band of misfit Republicans, and should ride that momentum into South Carolina where Gingrich is currently a considerable favorite.

If Romney can cut Gingrich’s margin in South Carolina in half, there’s reason to believe he can win Florida outright and end the Republican race before Valentine’s Day.

Depending on which polls you read, Romney is either a slight favorite or a 15 point underdog in Florida. Like most things, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle, but as Gingrich falters, which he no doubt will in New Hampshire, how much staying power does he truly have?

After a blow out in New Hampshire, will Republicans begin to see the inevitability of a Romney nomination? Is support for Gingrich strong enough to weather an already fading moment in the spotlight?

Probably not, which leaves us with Romney and Paul, both of whom have had steady support throughout this process.

I told a friend this morning that I thought a Romney/Paul ticket may actually be incredibly appealing to moderates and a younger generation of people who support the libertarian movement, while rejecting the demands of Occupy.

At some point, the Republicans will have to determine if Paul is a big enough threat as a third party candidate to split conservative votes. Remember, Paul is the best social media campaigner of the group and his supporters are fierce. It’s not out of the realm to envision the GOP tapping into that base and picking Paul to run with Romney.

That’s a discussion for another day.

Right now, Romney remains the front-runner, a position he appears unlikely to relinquish. The only question now appears to be how fast and how many fall next?

Political Selection Process needs major shift

This obsession with Iowa needs to stop.

In the political realm, placing this much importance on a small state in which voter turnout has never been above 23% doesn’t provide political discussion, only political pandering.

The Iowa caucuses are responsible, in part, for the massive and oppressive corn subsidies in this country. If you’re a Congressman or woman, how can you campaign in Iowa for president if your record on agribusiness is less than favorable to Iowa Farmer Jim?

Let’s be honest, there are enough megalomaniacs in Congress to be constantly testing the political winds for a run at the Oval Office.

It’s the reason I’m somewhat astounded so many popular Republican candidates have pulled their names from the running.

More to the point, who really cares about Iowa?

Since 1972, Iowa has voted for the eventual winner of the presidency 7 out of 10 times. Interestingly, in those 10 elections, Republicans and Democrats have five victories each.

Nice balance right?

Except Missouri has voted for the eventual presidential winner in every election since 1904 except two (2008 was one of them).

If it isn’t because Iowa is important or somehow a bellwether for the election, then why Iowa?

Well, because it’s first.

Is it first because it’s important or important because it’s first?

The answer is the latter. The Iowa caucuses are important because they’re first. If the first caucuses were somewhere else, they’d be important.

While it’s true that the Iowa caucuses don’t mean a presidential run is christened (ask Mike Huckabee) or over, an unreasonable and unhealthy amount of time and money is spent by candidates in Iowa.

My problem with the system, however, runs even deeper and is why I love a particular movement so much.

First the problem: the field of potential candidates is decided more or less by the media. Jon Stewart famously made fun of the 24 hour news channels early in the Republican field-forming by noting that Ron Paul was rarely mentioned despite the fact that he’d won the straw poll.

Stewart chastised Fox News in particular, for failing to tout the small government message of Paul despite the fact that the libertarian ideals were already beginning to take root among a populace growing ever disenchanted with liberal mythology.

The New York Times famously endorsed John McCain as a Republican candidate then went out to brutally attack him once he was selected as the candidate.

My point is simple: we didn’t get to choose the candidates, simply from the candidates.

There is a self-selection process whereby a potentially qualified candidate decides not to run because he or she believes a win would be impossible.

This is where Americans Elect comes in.

The system is not without flaws, but it is a glorious step in the proverbial right direction.

Americans Elect’s message “Pick a President, not a party,” runs counter-culturally to the political machine created by the media.

We decide who we like as a candidate based on what the media tells us about each candidate. Unfortunately, the media tends to be biased and those biases have only gotten worse over time.

Americans Elect gives you a survey where you decide what issues are important and determine where you stand on the issues.

From there, you’re connected with candidates who fit what you believe.

Americans Elect has already gotten on the ballot as a third party in a number of states and continues to grow.

The idea, a sort of direct democracy being championed by the Occupy Movement, gives each voice more power to determine the pool from which we get to vote, not just who to vote for once a pool is established.

It’s a radical, albeit intuitive idea.

Even better? Americans Elect is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated simply to giving a voice to people who otherwise wouldn’t have one.

Obviously certain technological barriers exist, but most people likely to vote either have access at home to the internet, or are within manageable traveling distance to a library.

Much like one has to get to a polling place in order to vote, it isn’t unreasonable to hope someone would make it to a library to be a part of such a truly democratic process.

Don’t just pick a president, pick the candidates we get to choose from.

That way we’re not stuck deciding between terrible and awful, dumb and dumber (see: Gore v. Bush).

No, Americans Elect probably wouldn’t have prevented the candidacy of a figure like our soon-to-be-former President, but at least people would be able to see a group of candidates with whom they agree more closely.

As is the case with Obama, this won’t preclude a politician from failing to live up to campaign promises or changing stances for political gain.

On the other hand, a system giving more power, more knowledge, to all of the people involved has to be an upgrade over the way we do it now.

With Cain out, supporters are left wondering ‘Whose next?’

Herman Cain’s departure from the Republican Presidential Nominee race isn’t shocking. His 9-9-9 plan made people think (and probably made Rick Perry’s head hurt from thinking too hard), his charm and independent mind made people support him, but ultimately, Herman Cain never had a chance.

His extra-marital affair and sexual harassment allegations may have been the driver of his campaign “suspension”, but this was a “it was going to happen sooner or later” moment for Herman Cain.

It just happened sooner rather than later.

To me, that’s a good thing. Cain had less experience than our current failure of a president, albeit armed with a much more compelling history as a leader.

His policy knowledge was shaky at best and the lasting image of his campaign might be him stuttering over a question about Libya.

More importantly now, the question is: what does this mean for Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, the presumed front-runners for the nomination.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Cain was holding just 8% of likely voters compared to Gingrich’s 38% and Romney’s 17%.

Of course, even if all of Cain’s supporters head to Camp Romney (unlikely), the former Massachusetts Governor would still have plenty of ground to make up.

CNN took its best shot to try and determine where Cain supporters may turn their attention. Their estimation was about 2 out of 5 Cain supporters will go to Gingrich, while Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann would be the likely recipients of any other bump.

This question about Herman Cain’s supporters is one we’ll have after every major candidate drops out. It’s relevant because Gingrich and Romney only account for about 55% of likely Republican voters, which means an enormous portion of the base has yet to get behind one of the front-runners.

Cain is the last threat to the leaders unless Rick Perry can somehow stage a comeback (also unlikely). That leads to an important question: will the people who supported Cain simply flock to Gingrich because he’s the more conservative of the front-runners, or is he the kind of “establishment” Republican that Cain supporters detest?

Obviously we’ll have to find out, but what makes this interesting is that candidates like Paul, Bachmann and Cain are all “anti-establishment” candidates.

Romney may not be as conservative as Gingrich, but he has the business chops and free market ideas that libertarians and independents can appreciate.

Furthermore, he doesn’t have the history as a volatile and temperamental character with a history of infidelity of his own.

Soon-to-be-former President Obama is losing to generic Republicans by 6 points as of last week, but continues to run neck and neck with Romney, and holds comfortable leads in Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida, who just happen to be having the first Republican primaries.

In the next month the race for the nomination will likely lose Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman barring unforeseen circumstances.

There’s still 45% of Republican voters, not to mention a widening portion of moderates, disillusioned with Obama to be had.

The Iowa Caucuses are the first step, but we can’t emphasis enough that it’s just a step.

Remember, Mike Huckabee won Iowa in 2008. How’d that turn out for him?