Iowa caucus: Why Mitt Romney can't lose

Mitt Romney is leading in some polls ahead of the Iowa caucus. But even if Romney finishes second to Ron Paul or Rick Santorum in Iowa, he'll still come out ahead, says DCDecoder.

REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and wife Ann at a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa January 3, 2012.

So at last it’s come - the moment we’ve all been waiting for. Tonight in Iowa, rank-and-file voters will finally have a say, making their picks for the Republican nominee for president.

We confess, election days often seem exciting and anticlimactic at the same time, and today is no different. For one thing, the Iowa caucuses won’t actually get underway until  8 pm East Coast time tonight - meaning we still have a few more hours of breathless nonstop media coverage before anything actually happens.

And this year, that feeling of anticlimax is even stronger than usual, because, for all the media hoopla about Rick Santorum’s surge in Iowa - and make no mistake, it is a real surge - we’re still pretty sure Mitt Romney’s got this “thing” (as he put it yesterday) in the bag.

Romney may not win Iowa outright - though the latest polls show he’s currently in the best position to do so of any of the candidates. But even if he loses Iowa to Santorum or Ron Paul, we just don’t see any conceivable way Romney’s going to lose the nomination in the long run.

Consider: Santorum has almost nothing in the way of money or organization. True, if he wins Iowa, he will get the famed “bump.” But what will that bring? A ton of media scrutiny and attacks from other candidates. Remember, New Hampshire doesn’t vote until January 10 - and these days, a week is a lifetime in politics. Santorum has a long record of votes to pick over, and the media has only begun to examine his more controversial statements (like seeming to equate homosexuality with bestiality - which led to his well-known “Google problem”) and actions (like bringing the dead body of his prematurely born child home from the hospital and allowing his other children to hold it).

Unlike Santorum, Ron Paul does have an organization. But we’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: There is simply no way Paul will ever win the Republican nomination. Yes, he appeals to many conservatives on fiscal matters, with his vow to slash government spending, cut agencies, etc. But his views on foreign affairs - he is opposed to nearly all foreign intervention and says he would not have approved the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, or the drone attacks that have killed other Al Qaeda leaders - make him flat-out unelectable within the GOP.

Meanwhile, the only candidates who ever might have had a real shot at building the kind of top-tier mainstream campaign that could actually challenge Romney - Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry - have sunk like stones. They do have some money (Gingrich said he raised $9 million in the 4th quarter) and it’s possible they could still make things interesting. But assuming they finish fourth or worse tonight (as polls suggest they will), it’s hard to see how they actually get back into contention.

This doesn’t mean we necessarily think all the fun is over. Romney will likely encounter at least a few more bumps in the road on the way to the nomination. If he comes in third tonight, or even a weak second, that will induce lots of hand-wringing about whether he has a “ceiling” of support that simply can’t be cracked. But ultimately, it won’t matter: barring something extraordinary and unexpected, Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. The only question is how long it takes.

Like your politics unscrambled? Check out

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Iowa caucus: Why Mitt Romney can't lose
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today